Barfoot & Thompson has listed Penny Bright's house for sale on behalf of the High Court, to recover unpaid rates and penalties dating back to 2007. Photo / Barfoot & Thompson
Barfoot & Thompson has listed Penny Bright's house for sale on behalf of the High Court, to recover unpaid rates and penalties dating back to 2007. Photo / Barfoot & Thompson
Activist Penny Bright says she's not going anywhere, despite her home being listed for mortgagee sale over unpaid rates.
The Kingsland home owned by self-proclaimed "anti-corruption whistleblower" is listed for sale on Barfoot & Thompson's website, with a tender closing next Tuesday.
The home is advertised as a "mature, split-levelhouse", on a "mature, rear section accessed by right-of-way drive".
"The dwelling is constructed of weatherboard exterior cladding with iron roof and double-hung wooden sash joinery.
"There is an overhung veranda over the entry deck at the front of the dwelling and north-facing protruding dormer window on the upper level," the listing reads.
Penny Bright at her home in Kingsland, Auckland. Photo / Brett Phibbs
The home was listed after Auckland Council asked the High Court to sell the house to recoup tens of thousands of dollars unpaid rates and penalties accumulated since 2007.
It followed an unsuccessful appeal by Bright and a statutory six-month stand-down period for the council.
At the start of the year, Auckland Council acting group chief financial officer Matthew Walker told the Herald taking enforcement action to recover unpaid rates was "the last resort and happens very rarely".
"The council has written to Ms Bright regularly over the last six months offering to resolve this matter.
Speaking to the Herald this morning, Bright slammed the sale listing as "not fair" and "not okay".
"I believe I'm being maliciously picked on as an anti-corruption whistleblower," Bright said.
The Aucklander has set up a Givealittle page which closes on Friday and was aiming to raise $21,000.
This would cover her outstanding rates as well as the cost of setting up the page.
Bright said she had worked fulltime "in the public interest" since paying off her house in 2000.
"Largely thanks to my heavy lifting, the books are a lot more open than they used to be," she said.
"But we still have a lot of work to do."
Bright wanted council contracts to show a unique contract number, the name of the contract, the scope of the contract, the contract finish date, the exact value of each and every contract and how the contract was tendered.
Bright said it was a "big deal", being the second ever forced Rating Sale against a freehold property that Auckland Council had applied for.
The Givealittle page had raised a little over $4,000 on Monday morning.
Whatever the outcome of the page, Bright said she was not going anywhere without a fuss.
"Absolutely bloody not," she said.
In January 2016, the District Court entered judgment for Auckland Council against Bright for $34,182.56 for outstanding rates and penalties.
Costs were awarded in the council's favour for $13,249.20
In July 2016, Chief High Court judge Justice Geoffrey Venning dismissed an appeal by Bright in the High Court at Auckland and awarded costs in favour of the council for $7080.
The summary judgment obtained was for outstanding rates and penalties of $34,182.56, as at June 30 2015.
The council has been awarded total costs in the District and High Courts of $20,329.20.
In May 2017, the High Court issued a notice pursuant to the Local Government Rating Act of 2002 requiring Bright to pay the judgment sum, costs and all remaining rates due on the property.
A spokesman for Network PR, speaking on behalf of Barfoot & Thompson about the sale, said the company was selling the property on behalf of the court.
"Barfoot & Thompson's client is the court - the court asked Barfoot & Thompson to handle the sale of the house."
